What is Edwards thinking? I just don't get it.

[IndieLeft]

I'm listening to Randi Rhodes and she said that Edwards is basically bartering with Obama/Clinton for his super-D vote.

I've been hearing about this for the last week or so from various sources, and I understand that many of the super-Ds are doing the same, but is this not in complete contrast of what Edwards' campaing was about?

I thought it was all deeply personal? He wasn't doing this for him, he was running for us. Isn't that what he was all about? I am confused.

Like I said, this is just what I have heard, and I honestly hope it is wrong, but if no... I feel really stupid for believing anything he said.

[MercutioATC]

1. Perhaps bartering inclusion of some of his ideas in their platforms...

...that's not a betrayal of his supporters, it's the best thing he can give them as things stand now.

[ananda]

2. I have a suspicion that Edwards is..

.. bartering for the people.

[Tellurian]

107. If that is so, then I doubt he would indeed barter w/Obama

not with John Kerry's active role in Obama's campaign. Kerry is Obama's surrogate for calling Super-delegates and most likely the recipient of a "position" if Obama is elected.

[EmperorHasNoClothes]

3. I don't buy it.

I don't think either Edwards or Obama go for that kind of quid-pro-quo stuff. If Edwards is planning on endorsing Obama, it's more likely they're discussing the hows and wheres of the announcement.

[IndieLeft]

44. Not selling anything.

Just asking for opinions.

And, he has also been meeting with Hillary over the same thing, so don't assume he's going to endorse Obama.

[jgraz]

Depends what he's bartering for.

If he's pressing them on issues of poverty and corporate power, then I hope he uses every bit of leverage he has.

[Caseman]

59. More like bartaring for the better office deal...

...I will say anything for the people, as long I get some power too.

[jgraz]

68. Says the guy with the Biden avatar

Say, what's the Senator from MNBA been up to lately?

[IndieLeft]

81. you're bad!

:evilgrin:

[Skinner]

It's not his superdelegate vote they want. It's his endorsement.

But what, exactly, is wrong with bargaining? Seems like a better strategy than giving it away for free.

[JVS]

9. In that case, would Obama get Edwards' 26 delegates?

[Skinner]

26. My understanding is that JE cannot make his delegates vote for anyone else.

But I could be wrong.

[Bread and Circus]

11. Bartering isn't consistent with an endorsement based on principle... and the OP

is finding that inconsistent with Edward's campaign which was supposed to be base on the principle of "it's the people vs. the corporations".

Now, he looks like a guy who will sell out his support to the highest bidder.

Consistency and principles matter...

[Skinner]

19. That doesn't make any sense at all.

If John Edwards has a set of principles that he is trying to advance, why wouldn't he bargain with the two frontrunners to see if he can get one of them to commit to those principles?

Is it principled to do nothing to advance your principles?

I thought Obama and Clinton were supposed to be the corporate candidates. Why would JE endorse either of them if they don't support his agenda?

[IndieLeft]

27. If he is bartering for the people, then that is fine. I have no problem with that.

If he is trying to get himself a nice cushy position, then I do have a problem with that.

It would make him look calculating. It would tell me that he really was no different than the candidates and tactics he railed against.

Like I said, and I hope I made it clear, I don't know his intentions. I just know what I hear and what I read. Something about it just doesn't sound right to me.

I hope his intentions are in our best interest.

[Straight Shooter]

36. A "nice cushy position" like Attorney General perhaps?

Go for it, John. :thumbsup:

[IndieLeft]

47. I think he'd make a great Attorney General

And I would hope the either candidate would put him in a high profile position. He needs to be involved.

[Bread and Circus]

35. Is John Edwards blind? After standing on the stage with them for umpteen

debates does he not already know where they stand? After countless hours trying to battle them on the campaign trail he does not know what they are made of?

I doubt it.

He knows.

And therefore, he should know who would really carry on his "mission" (at least the mission he discovered after he dropped out of the DLC)the best.

Did Al Gore barter with Dean before he endorsed him? Did Ted Kennedy barter with Obama? Did Kennedy?

This is not a barter over "programs" or "principles" as they are all well known to Edwards and people aren't going to change their "priniciples" for an endorsement anyway. Such a thing would no longer be a "principle" at that point if you really think about what a principle means.

This bartering is over influence and political power, perhaps even a position.

It's reasonable to question the sincerity of it.

Edwards should have been a man and endorsed someone based on his own internal judgement, not a "deal".

Besides, all the "programs" and "policies" they all propose pretty much echo each other anyway.

If Edwards is looking for a few re-assurances on dedication to a few things, I'd buy that. However, he should be able to know that anywy just by judging from each candidate's record and history, just like the rest of us.

[Skinner]

45. But "the rest of us" aren't in a position to bargain.

If a presidential candidate wanted your endorsement very much, and you were in a position to ask that they pledge their support to something you believe in -- ending poverty, or ending the War in Iraq, or providing universal health care -- why wouldn't you ask? You would be in a position to potentially do a lot of good. Giving away your endorsement for free would be a huge missed opportunity.

More than anyone else on the Democratic side of the fence, this year John Edwards is that guy. He probably is the single most coveted endorsement.

[Bread and Circus]

55. Alright, let's get this in order:

1.) "Ending poverty" is one tall order. Doing such a thing in any hurry is not realistic. I've only visited one country that "ended" poverty in any sense, and that was Norway. Getting anywhere near the sense of social equality and distribution of wealth like Norway is an inter-generational issue, not something that can be done in 8 years. However, both candidates can start down that path and both candidates have mult-faceted plans to do so, found on their website and hinted at in their speeches.

2.) "Ending the war in Iraq" - both say they want to. One gives a deadline, one doesn't. Obama's FP advisors are a little less hawkish than Clinton's and Clinton leaves the door open for an extended operation there. Bush is in communication with Clinton and "trusts her" with his legacy there. Their stances in the past on other FP matters are well documented and good analyses abound. What more does John Edwards need to know?

3.) "Providing Universal Health Care" - Look, I'm a physician and as one who is part of PNHP and supports real Universal Health Care (as in single payer HR676 type health care) I can tell you that none of their plans live up to that standard. The only real actionable difference between the plans is the mandate, and their differing stances on that has been documented and analyzed.

The point is, as I was making before, the stances on the issues are known, their character is known, and their dedication to their policies is known. You don't need a sit-down face to face to negotiate things that a.) don't fundamentally differ and b.) where they do differ on the margin, it's already been documented what the differences are.

Perhaps, John needs the "look into their soul" test that Bush is so fond of, I don't know.

However, something in my INTP brain doesn't jive with this bartering thing.

On the other hand, maybe John really just has his mind made up and is taking the time to tell them in person and give them one last chance for them to plea for his support. That's reasonable.

[IndieLeft]

58. That is also a possiblility.

I hadn't thought about that. Maybe he has already made up his mind and just wants to tell them face to face.

[Skinner]

63. I should have said "do something about poverty."

But the examples I gave are completely beside the point. My question was not even about John Edwards. The point was to imagine yourself being in a position to ask for something "good" in exchange for your endorsement. If you truly care about affecting change, wouldn't you want to do some good?

[Bread and Circus]

66. When you word it that way, yes. I'm just skeptical.

[IndieLeft]

70. As you should be. As we all should be.

Regardless of who you support, we should all take the time to examine our candidates. None of them should get a free pass.

Despite the tone on DU some days, we are not in high school, and we are not voting for class president, or student council any more.

We are voting for the leader of the free world. It is not something to take lightly.

And no, I am not saying anyone who has commented in this thread is taking this lightly. For the most part, all comments have been well thought out and sincere.

[superkia]

86. He aslo stood on one of those stages and said that he and Obama...

were the " change " candidates and Clinton was the status quo. You would think he would support the other change candidate if status quo is bad for the people?

[Orsino]

92. I would be quite happy to see him pressure one of the two into a deal.

He can't be the nominee, but we might benefit from a progressive compromise by a corporatist nominee.

He knows that Clinton and Obama trounced him by cutting better deals along the way. Rather than deride deal-making (it's a little late for that, years into the the presidential race by career politicians), we should judge Edwards on what kind of deal he can strike. If he can force Clinton to commit to a more specific timeline for troop withdrawal, or become Obama's Attorney General, or even become a running mate, I think we'd all benefit. He has a little pull right now, and if he can pull our pair of corporatist would-be nominees a little to the left, that would be good for everyone.

[dansolo]

104. It depends on what he is bartering for

It is reasonable to suspect the motives of someone jockeying for a position in an Administration. For example, I would question his being tapped for Attorney General. It's not that he isn't qualified. It's just that I don't believe that he could really do very much to advance the causes that he argued for during his campaign, and it would seem like he was more interested in the position. But if he was placed in a position where he could be directly involved in working on programs to help the poor, then I say "Go for it."

[femrap]

91. On Ed Schultz today...

the scheduled meeting of Edwards and Obama was canceled. I don't know who did the canceling or if the meeting was rescheduled...anyone heard?

[IndieLeft]

95. There has been reports back and forth about rescheduling.

[jsamuel]

20. It is if the bartering is for the issues that Edwards holds strong principle on.

If he is using his endorsement as a way to push the issues he pushed during his campaign, it is completely consistent.

[Skinner]

22. Self-delete.

Double post.

[Leopolds Ghost]

37. Sure it is. only thing you get w/ minority vote. Otherwise there is no point to proportional voting

Proportional voting is about the minority parties bartering their
delegates to put one of the winning candidates over the top, that
is what keeps small parties alive in Israel and Britain and other
progressive, multiparty "democracies". The system isn't perfect,
but it is better than what we have in the general election here in
the US. For a general election version see Louisiana.

[IndieLeft]

17. You see, that is a problem.

The super delegates were initiated to give whichever candidate wins the pledged delegates a decisive victory.

Now, the are being used as... as a means to get something in return. The process is being abused.

[Skinner]

23. As I said, this isn't about his superdelegate vote.

It's about his endorsement. An endorsement from JE could bring a substantial number of votes in upcoming primaries and caucuses.

[IndieLeft]

29. Okay, then I misunderstood what I heard... fair enough.

That being said, I stand by my concerns.

I think he should have endorsed by now. It isn't like he doesn't know where the two of them stand.

They have all undoubtedly scrutinized each other's platforms top to bottom by now.

And as I said, if he is doing this with our best interests (all of our interests) I have no problem with it. If he is doing it for self serving reasons... well, only time will tell.

[karynnj]

25. It does lead to the opinion that as they currently stand, he sees no great reason to prefer one to

that other. If that is true, it would likely be better not to endorse.

It bothers me that either one would say or do something for that endorsement that they do not already believe is the right thing to do. It makes me suspicious that it would be treated as "just words" - so many of which in any campaign never come true.

I was already for Obama, though not enthusiastically, before Kerry and then Kennedy endorsed. What was compelling was that each made a different compelling case that rang true both to who they are and to who Obama is. They both had solid examples of things Obama had done that fit what they said. In both cases, why that might have swayed some people who respect one or both of the Massachusetts Senators is because each said things that reflexed what supporters see in their own personal values.

If Edwards sees either of the candidates - as they do - he can make a very personal eloquent case for them. If it is seen as an auction - that diminishes it.

[TexasObserver]

34. The problem is Hillary needs to get Edwards' endorsement worse than Obama does.

Team Obama is rolling. They are winning and could win out in February, or come close to it.

Team Clinton is in trouble, losing big time, and in serious financial array, and at a serious organizational and financial disadvantage. It's hard to see how she can turn this around. I don't buy Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania turn it around. That's the kind of talk that only campaign loyalists can believe.

If Obama doesn't need Edwards nearly as much as Clinton does, that put Edwards on the horns of a dilemma. If he chooses wrong, he loses his chance to have a role in the Obama presidency, and he may lose the streed cred he has with many of his supporters.

[nonconformist]

53. Wait.

Ok, for one, Clinton is not "losing big time", but..

You say:

If he chooses wrong, he loses his chance to have a role in the Obama presidency

Ummm, what? You think that if he endorses Clinton, he will be SHUNNED by Obama and will have no role in his administration? Well that is just petty bullshit. John Edwards deserves a significant role in the administration of whoever gets the nomination, so he can work FOR THE PEOPLE.

[GoldieAZ49]

101. Edwards deserves a significant role in the administration

Why? What has he DONE to deserve a significant role in any administration?

[nonconformist]

108. Support of the people, maybe?

Edwards has a great deal of support for his ideas.

Maybe that's not as fancy as being an unknown until 2004 and being a mere state level senator up until a couple of years ago, but Edwards has tremendous support and respect in the Democratic party. For people that supported other candidates in the primary, Edwards was often their #2.

[GoldieAZ49]

109. ok, what did he DO in support of the people

He said it is his lifes work. What has he done since 2004, when he entered the national arena to help the people.

I know he was a trail lawyer and then a senator, but has he worked in his community, created programs or foundations or, I don't know, done something more than talk about it?

[nonconformist]

110. Why are you zoning in on Edwards?

Are you implying that he's unworthy of being included in an administration?

Since 2004...

Post-Senate activities

The day after his concession speech, he announced his wife Elizabeth had been diagnosed with breast cancer. Edwards told interviewer Larry King that he doubted he would return to practice as a trial lawyer and showed no interest in succeeding Terry McAuliffe as the Democratic National Committee chairman.

Activism

In February 2005, Edwards headlined the "100 Club" Dinner, a major fundraiser for the New Hampshire Democratic Party. That same month, Edwards was appointed as director of the Center on Poverty, Work and Opportunity at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill for studying ways to move people out of poverty. That fall, Edwards toured ten major universities in order to promote "Opportunity Rocks!", a program aimed at getting youth involved to fight poverty.

On March 21, 2005, Edwards recorded his first podcast with his wife. Several months later, in August, Edwards delivered an address to a potential key supporter in the Iowa caucus, the AFL-CIO in Waterloo, Iowa.

In the following month, Edwards sent an email to his supporters and announced that he opposed the nomination of Judge John Roberts to become Chief Justice of the United States. He was also opposed to the nomination of Justice Samuel Alito as an Associate Justice.

During the summer and fall of 2005, he visited homeless shelters and job training centers and spoke at events organized by ACORN, the NAACP and the SEIU. He spoke in favor of an expansion of the earned income tax credit, a crackdown on predatory lending, an increase in the capital gains tax rate, housing vouchers for racial minorities (to integrate upper-income neighborhoods), and a program modeled on the Works Progress Administration to rehabilitate the Gulf Coast following Hurricane Katrina. In Greene County, North Carolina he unveiled the pilot program for College for Everyone, an educational measure he promised during his presidential campaign, in which prospective college students would receive a scholarship for their first year in exchange for ten hours of work a week.

Council On Foreign Relations

Edwards was co-chair of a Council on Foreign Relations task force on United States-Russia relations alongside Republican Jack Kemp, a former congressman, Cabinet official and vice presidential nominee. The task force issued its report in March 2006. On July 12, the International Herald Tribune published a related op-ed by Edwards and Kemp.

On April 6, 2006, Edwards joined Ted Kennedy at a rally for raising the minimum wage.

[GoldieAZ49]

111. Curious why all the support for an administration position

Thank you for the info, I did not know he had been active between 04 and 08 working against poverty.

This is what I find most impressive:
director of the Center on Poverty, Work and Opportunity at the University of North Carolina

Again, Thank you!

[nonconformist]

112. Glad I could help.

:hi:

[karynnj]

96. Really nice analysis

I still think that Edwards needs to go with his heart on this for exactly those reasons. If he doesn't have a strong preference he should stay neutral. Look at the response to Kerry's endorsement by HRC and Edwards supporters. In his case, he has a very very strong preference and articulated why - and it really does match who he is. Still, he admitted in a Dkos response that he did think of how it would hurt some people for other candidates. He felt strongly enough he jumped in.

Edwards would have a similar problem - as his people have gone both ways. He also has things he said about both that are only 6 months old - and pretty negative. In 2004, he attacked Kerry's healthcare plan as too ambitious and too expensive, but he did not attack his character.

Also, Edwards clearly could jump in and endorse the nominee when the nomination is settled and campaign aggressively - as I assume any campaign would like.

[SoFlaJet]

4. really his support is losing all it's luster

with each passing day pretty soon all it'll be worth is a super delegate vote. I just don't see how he could really support an establishment candidate that voted for a mistake-TWICE...Iraq and Iran

[GoldieAZ49]

103. Edwards is Not a superdelegate

[ananda]

5. I have a suspicion that Edwards is..

.. bartering for the people.

[Oregone]

6. Now, the man on the stand he wants my vote

He's a-runnin' for office on a ballot note
He's out there preachin' in' front of the steeple
Tellin' me he loves all kinds of people.
He's eatin' bagels, he's eatin' pizzas, he's eatin' chitlins.

Dylan

[AnOhioan]

7. Maybe Edwards is seeing which candidate.....

will agree to keep John's campaign issues in the forefront. He is not necessarily aiming for a place in a new administration.

[IndieLeft]

32. I hope you are right.

I really do. I hope this is about us... all of us.

[surfermaw]

8. Perhaps he has been reading this board and is changing his mind

I think it has something to do with deligates, he has to keep them to remain in control of them.

[elizm]

10. I just heard Rhandi Rhodes talking about it as well....

And she made a good point. If the Super Delegates decide this race against the will of the voters, all hell will break loose.

[TheDonkey]

12. He's looking out for himself. He's trying to see where he'll fit in the admin and campaign

Sorry I am not trying to be overly cynical or harsh but Edwards could easily endorse based off of issues... he could have done that weeks ago. He more than anyone knows both candidates views and platforms as he has had to memorize them for the debates.

He's looking for who has the sweetest offer. Not to say that is an evil tactic but its calculating.

[AnOhioan]

13. Maybe Edwards is seeing which candidate.....

will agree to keep John's campaign issues in the forefront. He is not necessarily aiming for a place in a new administration.

[mohc]

14. As Edwards is not a current Senator

or member of the DNC, is he even a Superdelegate? I could not find his name on demconwatch, on either the endorsed or non-endorsed lists.

[gateley]

15. I'm listening to her and she's making sense to me.

Somebody else posted, why did Edwards have a meeting with advisors on Saturday - this should be his personal belief he's forwarding with an endorsement.

Also, if he was sincere in his support for one or the other, wouldn't he have endorsed before Super Tuesday -- why the wait?

I agree with Randi - I question his motivation, and I'm sorry to feel that way.

[girl gone mad]

72. Why does everything have to have a nefarious purpose?

Who knows why he met with advisers, but these were the people he worked closest with during his campaign. Maybe he wants their input or would like to let them know his plans ahead of time out of respect to their service.

I believe that Edwards want his endorsement to mean something and he wants to have a lasting impact on the lives of the people he pledged to help. He can do that by getting assurance that the issues of income inequality, health care, affordable education, rebuilding New Orleans, poverty, and homelessness won't be ignored.

[gateley]

84. Because I've gotten so cynical, sadly, and I'm sure at times I distrust

someone when that distrust isn't warranted. It's almost become an automatic response. Isn't that sad?

I'm sorry if I'm impugning JE's motives, but why wait until now? If he did it, and spoke with them, before Super Tuesday, the endorsee could have incorporated JE's points into his/her platform and not only have gotten those issues in the forefront again, but would have given JE's supporters hope.

See? I just can't help myself. :blush:

[gateley]

87. SELF DELETE - dupe. Sorry. nt

[ChiciB1]

16. It's "DEAL" Time! He Wants His Proposals Incorporated Into The

Democratic Platform. This may have been "part" of what was promised when THE POWERS out there decided he should SUSPEND his campaign!

He STILL wants his MESSAGE to be amplified and used and he's actually going to STAND UP for what he STILL believes in. It had better be in WRITING... but he's a lawyer, he knows that!!

Could be a VP thing, but that's pretty far OUT THERE!! We must be realistic, it's HIS career and if he thinks this is the ONLY way to inject his issues front and center, for the GOOD OF THE PEOPLE, I can understand it. Just drive a HARD BARGAIN John Edwards! You have many many supporters who remain VERY LOYAL to you!

[Yael]

18. He is bartering for those whose voices haven't been heard

He wants his message on poverty squarely and prominently in the platform.

He didn't negotiate with the corporations he took on -- he went for the gold. He is a fighter and I expect nothing less from him now.

[TexasObserver]

21. It's a big problem for John, because Hillary will offer him more than Obama will, but ...

... but if he endorses Hillary, he loses his fan club among progressive Democrats, with me and my family at the top of the list.

He's free to do whatever he wishes, and I want to see him on the Supreme Court, but not if he rolls over for Hillary.

[BrklynLiberal]

24. Cool. Edwards on the Supreme Court!!!!

[IndieLeft]

43. LOL... I would have no problem with that.

[BrklynLiberal]

48. Cool. Edwards on the Supreme Court!!!!

[cbayer]

52. He has a good platform,

but do you really think his legal experience would qualify him for the Supreme Court?
He may be more appropriate for Health/Human Services and it is consistent with his stated priorities.

[TexasObserver]

60. John is well prepared for the Court and would make a great Justice

[TexasObserver]

62. John is well prepared for the Court and would make a great Justice

[IndieLeft]

67. Agreed.

[TexasObserver]

71. It's first of all his commitment to the key issues, 2nd his understanding, and 3rd his legal skills

[Hieronymus]

28. My, you are naive.

[IndieLeft]

41. And I think you are being ignorant.

Thank you for your substantive comment. That must have taken a lot of thought.

[michaz]

30. Let's just wait and see!

[solara]

31. Good grief.. I feel like I have fallen down a rabbit hole

I thought the Bush cartel was the enemy -I thought the neo-cons were the ones we must fight.

But, it is as if everyone and everything is our enemy now.. we don't -can't trust anyone-ever again..can that be true? Is this the legacy 8 years of Bushinsanity has left us?

Dammit I am bouncing back and forth from feeling really great and optimistic, to paranoia and despair..

What the hell is going on?


INVESTIGATE IMPEACH INDICT IMPRECATE INCARCERATE :patriot:

[IndieLeft]

38. I'm not saying Edwards is doing something shady.

I though I made that clear. I do have to question his motives. As we should all be doing to all politicians.

I don't give my candidate a free pass on anything. I don't give the opposition a free pass either.

I am one of the few on her who are not afraid to admit when my candidate makes a mistake. A mistake is a mistake.

It amazes me how others will defend mistakes of their candidates when their is no defense.


...speaking of mistakes, can't get spell check to work, so just posting.

[solara]

54. I am not defending anything, really - I am just sickened by the constant finger pointing and

anger against all the Dems I am getting from this site lately.

I just didn't expect it, I guess. Of course I question everyone, mostly because I know political candidates are human - and corruption just seems to be part of the nature of politics, unfortunately. We can only hope and pray that our candidate is the least corruptible and corrupt. But the constant negative accusations and insinuations towards every Dem candidate coming from the Dems themselves just saddens me.


I don't mean to single you out for this particularly, but this thread seems to illustrate my point. :shrug:

No offense intended.

[IndieLeft]

65. Oh I'm not offended.

I might be a bit disenfranchised, but that has nothing to do with you.

I have always been a democrat... never voted for a republican. But I see so many doing the same things that the republicans do, the stuff we criticize them for, and I just don't get it.

We voted them into office for a reason, and they haven't fulfilled their promises.

The war goes on and on. Pelosi and Reid take impeachment off the table. I see them all use the war as a political toy, and it is very disturbing and offensive. They all do it, both sides of the aisle.

I guess I just don't get it.

So now, when I see something that I don't understand, or think needs some extra light, I bring it up. That's all.

Awareness breeds knowledge, which in turn leads to change.

[solara]

102. I totally hear you on that

Awareness breeds knowledge which in turn leads to change... love it..very well said!

:hi:

[solara]

33. Dupe - removed

[Occam Bandage]

39. He, like all politicians, believes in a cause, and (more than that)

believes that he is the man best suited to help that cause. Therefore, he wants to help himself.

[IndieLeft]

40. yeah, but what is the cause?

If the cause benefits the people then that is fine, if the politician IS the cause, that is a problem.

[Yael]

73. Ending Poverty

[Occam Bandage]

97. In JRE's case, I think it's poverty.

[Blue_In_AK]

42. I don't see any disconnect here...

How does bartering with the candidates equate to him not caring about us? Could it possibly be that he's trying to make sure that his issues FOR US are being addressed adequately by whomever he chooses to endorse (if he does)?

I don't understand all this handwringing.

[IndieLeft]

46. Edwards knows where the other two stand.

You don't participate in 17 debates with them without knowing that information.

He should have endorsed by now. What he is doing now, the way it is happening just makes me wonder what is really going on.

If nothing is "really going on" then that is great.

Only time will tell.

[Blue_In_AK]

50. Then maybe he IS angling for a position

in one or the other's cabinet. I don't have a problem with that either. I just don't get why everyone is so concerned about who, why, when, or if he endorses. The candidates should be able to stand (or fall) on their own merits.

[IndieLeft]

51. I think he'll get a position in either of their candidates...

whether he endorses the eventual winner or not.

[Blue_In_AK]

85. We can all hope.

[katsy]

64. Knowing their position on issues...

does not preclude Edwards from nudging Obama or Clinton closer to his point of view. That's one scenario.

Another scenario is maybe he wants to be briefed on their policies in a more thorough manner than can be gotten from a televised debate or a candidate's PR releases, before endorsement.

And if Edwards is positioning himself to be part of the team... that would be great IMO. He would be as valuable as any other team member I can think of for either administration. But, I'm an Edwards supporter and am therefor biased in that respect.

His endorsement would carry some weight for me. Not the deciding factor, but I would value his input much as I value endorsements from unions and the ACLU.

[IndieLeft]

76. He should be part of either of their cabinets

regarless of who he endorses.

[katsy]

80. Absolutely!

I want Edwards in no matter who wins.

And if I had just one more heart to give - it would've been yours!

:yourock:

On edit: ooops, I misunderstood and want to add that it would not bother me if he chooses to endorse the candidate that makes him part of their cabinet.

[weeve]

49. well ...

... just beacuse Randi says it, doesn't make it so. I really take EVERYTHING she says these days with a HUGE grain of salt.

[IndieLeft]

56. I didn't say Randi was the end all be all...

And, as I said, that's not the only place I have read about this.

[Caseman]

57. I think he is weighing which candidate has the best chance for the nomination...

...So he will get a VP or cabinet spot. This is the slimey thing I saw in him from the outset of his campaign. Total lawyer move. But, people don't have to believe it since ignorance is numbing.

[Yael]

74. People who don't see things your way are ignorant?

Welcome to the list!

[Renew Deal]

61. Edwards can do more good from bargaining than sitting on his hands.

Maybe he's going to force one of them to take a strong anti-poverty plank. Maybe he'll get a job. Who knows.

[SKKY]

69. What if he's not "bartering" with either of them....

...maybe they all went out to dinner one night, Edwards picked up the tab because the others forgot their wallet, and he's collecting on a debt? Sooooooo much speculation about this. Kinda funny.

[IndieLeft]

75. Could be... Never know.

But I refuse to follow blindly. None of them deserve to go on without us scrutinizing their motives.

[SKKY]

93. When there's something to scrutinize, I'll do so...

...until then, those cheap bastards need to pick up their share of the tab! :)

[unc70]

113. Don't think they went out to eat. We would have seen them around town.

One night I had to really work to avoid eavesdropping on John and Elizabeth who were seated two tables away in a nearly empty restaurant in the neighborhood. Trying to respect their privacy as I heard bits of their conversation was a difficult task. Mixed in with Jack's report card would be a partial sentence like "If Hillary decides to run then". My natural curiosity made this a real challenge, but I was able to relinquish my opportunity to snoop on them.

[NoodleBoy]

77. I'm pretty sure Edwards is not a superdelegate.

unless he has a seat on the democratic national committee?

[NoodleBoy]

78. I'm pretty sure Edwards is not a superdelegate.

unless he has a seat on the democratic national committee?

[NoodleBoy]

79. I'm pretty sure Edwards is not a superdelegate.

unless he has a seat on the democratic national committee?

[IndieLeft]

82. That's already been adressed... too late to edit

[NoodleBoy]

83. sorry, the page didn't change when I first pressed post, then did it a couple more times

first time it's triple-posted on me before. oops.

[IndieLeft]

90. DU is acting up today... all day

[Thrill]

88. Edwards has to enjoy this moment because he's not likely

to be much of a political figure anymore. He is not very popular here in NC. So his chances of winning a statewide office are slim. So he has enjoy this now.

[debbierlus]

89. Of course he is....he would be a fool not to!

[IndieLeft]

94. Wouldn't that make him just like the people he rails against?

Wouldn't that make him a hypocrite?

[JuniperLea]

98. Define hypocrite!

Why would he be a hypocrite to try and help us by getting some of his issues some play?

Absurd. Simply absurd.

[Bucky]

99. It's called politics. It's something that politicians do. Specifically, it's Madisonian democracy.

If he's negotiating anything, he's negotiating policy positions. It would be downright irresponsible of him NOT to try and use his leverage now to achieve the goals for which so many people supported him. This horsetrading you object to is EXACTLY what our constitition is designed to allow--even to encourage. Building coalitions isn't corrupt; it's apple pie.

[GoldieAZ49]

100. Edwards is Not a superdelegate the provided link shows who is

http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/01/superdelegates-who-havent-endorsed.html

It is an attempt to pick up Edwards voters, something that may or may not be of value, most have already made their choice

[1776Forever]

105. The John Edwards Primary - Washington Post Article -

The John Edwards Primary

By Dan Balz

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/02/11/the_john_edwards_primary_1.html

The John Edwards primary is now in full swing. Hillary Clinton made a clandestine visit to see her former rival last Thursday at his home in North Carolina to seek his support. Soon it will be Barack Obama's turn to make the pilgrimage to Tobacco Road. The Illinois senator ought to be ready for some serious conversation.

That Edwards is agonizing over the endorsement should be worrisome to Obama. Edwards, the scourge of special interests, should be easy pickings for the change candidate in the Democratic race, given all Edwards has said in criticism about Clinton over months of campaigning. But outward appearances suggest he is genuinely torn. An endorsement of Clinton would be a blow to Obama.

Whether Edwards will soon endorse in the Democratic race is not clear. But if he does, the decision is likely to generate as much media attention as Ted Kennedy's announcement that he was supporting Obama. Al Gore would top both in terms of instant impact, but there is no sign that the environmental oracle is ready to plunge back into the gritty world of presidential politics.

The apparent alliance between Obama and Edwards was clearest in the days just before the New Hampshire primary, when Edwards embraced Obama and chastised Clinton as an agent of the status quo. "We have a fundamental difference about the way you bring about change," he said of Obama at their debate three days before New Hampshire. "But both of us are powerful voices for change.".........

Other politicians have said that Obama can be even more persuasive an advocate in his own behalf in face-to-face conversations than he is on the stump. He now has the opportunity to win over a potentially valuable ally as the campaign moves past the Potomac primaries to Wisconsin, Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania -- if he can satisfy whatever doubts may be holding Edwards back.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

106. the let the slaughter begin.....Poor JE.....please don't let it happen